Roberts, Moran split on debt ceiling vote

Roberts votes 'yes' on measure, while Moran casts 'no' ballot

Kansas' U.S. senators split over approving the compromise measure the Senate approved Tuesday to raise the debt ceiling with Sen. Pat Roberts, left, voting with the majority, and Sen. Jerry Moran, voting "no" on the measure.

Just as the compromise measure to avoid the nation’s first-ever government default divided Kansas’ delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives, Sens. Jerry Moran and Pat Roberts parted company on the bill sent to the president for his signature.

Roberts, the dean of the state’s congressional delegation, all six of whom are Republicans, voted with the majority of the Senate which gave the measure a strong bipartisan approval of 74-26. However, Moran, the former 1st District congressman in his first term as a senator, voted “no.”

A little more than an hour later, President Barack Obama signed the measure, which the house approved Monday on a 269-161 vote, with Reps. Lynn Jenkins and Mike Pompeo voting “yes” and Congressmen Tim Huelskamp and Kevin Yoder casting “no” ballots.

The approved compromise reached after a series of negotiations that broke down and restarted until the 11th-hour compromise was reached at paired an essential increase in the government’s borrowing cap with promises of more than $2 trillion of budget cuts over the next decade.

In a statement explaining his vote, Roberts said, “My first priority was to ensure our country did not default, which could have sent our country into economic chaos at a time when our economy is already on the brink.

“I will never play roulette with Kansans’ life savings,” added Roberts on a day on Wall Street that saw Standard & Poor’s 500 lose 2.6 percent as investors grew increasingly concerned about the economy. The benchmark index is now at its lowest point of the year.

The compromise measure, Roberts, who joined 45 Democrats, one independent and 27 other Republicans in supporting the bill, said “protects Kansas families and businesses from an even greater economic crisis than we have already experienced while stopping proposed tax increases and cutting $2.4 trillion in runaway government spending.

Moran, who was one of 19 Republicans, six Democrats and one independent, to vote “no” said he voted that way because the measure didn’t do enough to reign in federal deficit spending.

“The truth is this plan does not offer a solution to the underlying problem of our crisis today: our government’s out-of-control spending,” Moran said in a statement. “Even if fully enacted, it only slows the growth of spending, and that just barely.

“This plan will reduce spending by $21 billion next year. But given that we spend $4 billion more than we take in each day, those savings will disappear in less than a week.”

Moran said he had warned President Obama in March to not count on his vote “in the absence of substantial reductions in spending and structural changes to the way we do business in Washington, D.C.,” he said. “This plan does neither.”

Roberts said he wanted deeper slashes in spending, too.

“Had this agreement been mine to craft and pass alone, we’d have even greater spending cuts, but as Kansans saw over the last week, we could not achieve that with a Democrat-led Senate and the Obama White House.”

Both Kansas senators said the budget war is far from over, with Roberts vowing “to fight for spending cuts, for debt reduction and against tax increases. Today’s vote is just a first step toward regaining fiscal sanity in Washington.”

Obama expressed similar sentiments, saying: “It’s an important first step to ensuring that as a nation we live within our means. This is, however, just the first step. This compromise requeres that both parties work together on a larger plan to cut the deficit.”

The measure sets up a fall drama that promises to again test the ability of Obama and Republicans to work cooperatively. It establishes a special bipartisan committee to draft legislation to find up to $1.5 trillion more in deficit cuts for a vote later this year.

They’re likely to come from such programs as federal retirement benefits, farm subsidies, Medicare and Medicaid. The savings would be matched by a further increase in the borrowing cap.

There’s no guarantee the committee, to be evenly split between the warring parties, will agree on such legislation. But there are powerful incentives to do so because more budget gridlock would trigger a crippling round of automatic cuts across much of the budget, including Pentagon coffers.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Bill Blankenship can be reached at (785) 295-1284 or bill.blankenship@cjonline.com.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of
civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site.
Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate
language, but readers might find some comments offensive or
inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the
"Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Nice, Jerry... now, turn stage left, all of you need to get up on the podium level and have your picture taken along side Tim Huelskamp... own it, be it, embrace it... Proud to see Roberts, Jenkins and Pompeo be statesmen and women; The opponents (Jerry, Timmy & Yoder) represent the far extreme right of the "party"... and what a party it is... tail wagging the dog and perhaps in 2012 (but probably not until 2014) will we have a chance formally remind these people that when the miniroty of opinion tries to impose its will on the majority, sooner or later the majority will figure out what (and who) the problem is... Gj

Hint: it wasn't the Tea Party (Tihart was their man). We won't be making that mistake again!

Perhaps I can default on my mortgage so long as I promise to balance my books in the future?
That's the kind of message Moran is sending. Yes, we need to cut our debt, but we need to honor our current obligations first.

Sorry to post twice, but exactly what farm programs has Jerry voted against over the years? Subsidies for every crop Kansas grows, ethanol, etc.? Part of the problem then but not now? Amazing hypocracy that dwells within the hallowed halls of congress... Gj

It's pathetic our Kansas legislators in Washington put politics first. Jerry Moran, Tim Huelskamp and others should be voted out office in the next election. It's clear Jerry and Tim's interests are for the wealthy and not the struggling lower-middle class Americans they represent in economically depressed Kansas.

about 81% of people support a balanced budget initiative or amendment to the U.S. Constitution...that is, until specifics are discussed such as cutting social security, medicare, defense, etc...then that number plummets to around 30%.

You may well be right. Unfortunately, the economists now tell us that the $100 billion in federal spending cuts in 2012 translates to the *loss* of about 700,000 jobs, because that government money was buying equipment and services and pumping money into the economy. Can the private sector make that up? Taxes are not going down, and businesses are not having trouble borrowing right now, so how exactly will the private sector be positioned to create more jobs in America (as opposed to more jobs in China or India or wherever labor is cheap this year)?

See the recent comments by Mark Zandi (the chief economist for Moody's) or Mohamed El-Erian (the CEO of Pimco), on the debt deal. Neither is a rabid partisan, and they both think that the spending cuts in this deal are going to result in *HIGHER* unemployment and *SLOWER* growth. Wow, that's something to look forward to.

Not from what I hear.....If govt. is cutting, then that means less money to the states, and then that means a lot higher taxes to pay for things like schools, roads etc. and other things, that the avg. tax payer will be having to foot.

They also say there will be a big loss of jobs.

If I know I am going to have to pay more in local taxes....I am NOT going to be running out and spending money. I will be holding on to my money, knowing that my other taxes are going to be going up.

Good going Tea Party for holding everyone hostage......there will soon be a lot of b........ because people will see that raising taxes and getting rid of loopholes for the upper 1% is not in there and all of these other things are going to happen to our economy, that the avg. tax payer will be having to pay.

"...because people will see that raising taxes and getting rid of loopholes for the upper 1% is not in there and all of these other things are going to happen to our economy, that the avg. tax payer will be having to pay."

This actually brings up a good point. Tax loopholes do need to be closed, and corporate subsidies/breaks need to come to an end as well. Also, PIMCO CEO Mohamed El-Erian pointed out that this deal may not actually help the U.S. other than preventing a default today. After the next election cycle, the GOP will be unlikely to support cutting defense spending and raising taxes (really this would be allowing taxes to return to somewhat nominal levels, as they are very low by historical standards) when the extended Bush tax cuts expire, and the Democrats won't want to cut funding to social programs.

With the recent House and Senate votes the good old USA can
1) pay its current bills
AND
2) Congress can take their summer vacations.

MAYBE by the time they all return to Washington DC their constituents will have had an opportunity to reason with these politicians and after Labor Day they will actually get something accomplished . . . I won't hold my breath, but I can hope.
To that end I encourage everyone to be in contact with their Senators and Representatives and make sure they know what YOU what them to do.

So you vote to cut a couple trillion over what....8 years or so all the while eight more trillion are added to the national debt just to pay the intrest and overspending. Sounds like a Great Plan to cut spending.

Then there is the penny plan to cut one cent for every govt dollar spent. Is this the whole dollar we are talking about or the 60 cents that arent intrest on the over spending by the govt.

The rich get richer. We need a flat tax with zero loopholes or tax credits. Everyone should pay their fair share.

Jenkins and Roberts can sing the Holton fight song together again and be all smiles! A flat tax won't work, unless you want to strangle the government. SS can be saved by simply getting rid of the cap, or how about just raising it whatever the salary of Congress is so they at least pay 100% like most of the rest of us. Doesn't it bother any of you that the flat tax idea came from Steven Forbes, who is one of the richest people in the country? Why do you all support him and his $s, but sneer at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, who believe that their needs to be tax reform that will actually hit the wealthy. These are people who are actually giving away a lot of their $s and not buying adjoining plots for their casket and their money's casket!

The loopholes have got to be closed and these huge corporations making billions (mainly oil companies) and not paying anything in taxes has got to stop. The excuse that the wealthy are creating jobs is a joke, otherwise with the Bush give-aways, we'd have no unemployment problem now.
We have got to get these tea party extremists out of government and back under the rock they crawled out of. The tea party idea was a decent one but they have morphed into a self-fulfilling organization only worried about propagating their own ideals and not about the will of the people...worse than conventional democrats and republicans...which is saying alot. If we can keep the ********** off this 13-member panel it might have a chance of getting something done.

@crazywillie - remember, we are also starting to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. Those little sandpits are costing our economy dearly. Once they are gone the books will balance a heck of a lot easier. I hope we remember how bad this is going to hurt and stop trying to police the planet.

I've been making the same argument...ending the 3 wars we're now involved in is the quickest and least painful option to reduce government spending. Also, the Pentagon's annual budget has nearly doubled since 2001 (defense spending outlays do not include wars, as those are kept off the books). Tell me that there aren't defense contractors (Lockheed especially comes to mind) that have been riding the government gravy train for far too long.